Madison v Marbury is the case through which John Marshall was able to establish the power of judicial review. Though it often quoted, many do not know what the case was about. According to Magruder's American Government, when outgoing president John Adams was about to leave office, on March 3, 1801, late at night on his last day in office, Adams signed the commissions for office for several newly appointed federal judges. On the next day, Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated president, and he immediately ordered his new Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the commissions.

One of the appointees, William Marbury, applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to force Madison to deliver the commissions. Marbury based his request on a provision in the Judiciary Act of 1789 which empowered the Court to hear such cases in its original jurisdiction, rather than on appeal from a lower court.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court refused the request, because it held that the section of the Judiciary Act empowering it to issue the writ was unconstitutional. Article III of the Constitution sets out the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and does not provide for such cases as Marbury's. Congress was, in effect, attempting to amend the Constitution by a mere act. If Congress could amend the Constitution by simply passing a law, of what use are the amendment procedures provided in Article V? Indeed, if congress could so change the Constitution, of what use is the Constitution itself?

Not only did Marbury v Madison establish the precedent of judicial review, but it also established the idea that the Constitution cannot be amended by passing a law. (By the same token, how can the Court change the meaning of the Constitution by its interpretations?)